AuthorTopic: Could 2-2-V-1 have C-87 Provenance? (Read 28851 times)

I know of no other army aircraft in the Pacific that flew without camouflage paint in the Pacific Theater between December 1941 and 1944.

One amendment to this statement due to oversight ... I do know that the ground crew of General Kenney's famous B-17E "Sally" was struck by a photo of another General's transport in "Stars and Stripes" in natural aluminum finish, and not to be outdone decided to strip the plane of its paint while Kenney was away in March 1943. Kenney, a proponent of attack, embraced the change upon his return and flew in it without a paint scheme for the rest of the war.

Not exactly moot...no paint at date of loss suggests two possibilities...a) 41-11706 was put into service without paint and stayed that way until crashb) 41-11706 was put into service painted but stripped at some point in its career

I guess the moot aspect at the end of the day might be in whether or not the specific character and paint of one C-87 can be taken as necessarily applicable to a sister C-87. Probably not...I doubt we can ever know for sure what happened down to a specific airframe

Not exactly moot...no paint at date of loss suggests two possibilities...a) 41-11706 was put into service without paint and stayed that way until crashb) 41-11706 was put into service painted but stripped at some point in its career

I guess the moot aspect at the end of the day might be in whether or not the specific character and paint of one C-87 can be taken as necessarily applicable to a sister C-87. Probably not...I doubt we can ever know for sure what happened down to a specific airframe

Unless it rolled off the assembly line on or after 01 January 1944, it could only be b. Any aircraft put in to service in the Pacific prior to that were painted. And probably stripped and repainted multiple times ... the Army's experimentation with camouflage schemes and markings from 1926 until standardization across the armed forces in March 1942 was constant. Natural aluminum schemes, adopted in the late 1930s for economy purposes, were limited to domestic aircraft. As far as I know, any aircraft in potentially "hot" zones in natural aluminum schemes were between paint jobs (excepting some Aleutians aircraft as previously discussed), which was typically done while other maintenance on the aircraft was being performed, i.e., the aircraft was not operational.

The possibility exists that the Canton C-87 was between paint jobs when it crashed, but I consider this possibility small since it had been nearly a year since the Joint Aircraft Committee had issued its standardized color schemes for the Army, Navy and RAF (including RAAF and RCAF) in March 1942 ... all aircraft in theater not conforming to these schemes were repainted by the end of June, 1942, with aircraft rolling off the assembly lines painted in these schemes at the factory.

Could we assume the second C-87 loss at Canton Island mentioned here would have been unpainted?

I don't think we can assume that (most army aircraft that were already painted prior to January 1944 remained painted, and many army aircraft produced after January 1944 were painted upon arrival to the combat zone anyway), but it certainly is a possibility. Especially if it was a recent arrival to the area from the States.

(Perhaps this apparent discrepancy was discussed previously but I didnt find anything)

Read reply 205. Ric back pedaled on the water angle, changing it to "fluid" which allows for force of air as well: " After examining the piece closely he said that it was part of an airplane skin that had been struck on the interior surface by a fluid (i.e. air or water) force sufficient to blow the heads off the rivets but not focused enough to punch a hole in the metal - a big blunt push."

I remain skeptical - having given Strawberry Bitch a good going over at the National Museum of the USAF (yeah, I know, sounds bad but that was what happened), the construction of 2-2-V-1 is just so much lighter than anything anywhere that we could see on the B-24 that was even remotely similar.

At this point, I feel it is more incumbent on the proponents of 2-2-V-1 as having come from a C-87 to come up with hard evidence in the form of perido shop drawings, period useable photographs, other relevant period-dated information, etc., showing any portion of a C-87 where The Patch might possibly have come from, than for TIGHAR to expend extremely limited time and other resources showing that it didn't.

TIGHAR has talked the talk and walked the walk on this one. TIGHAR has an opinion from an expert that 2-2-V-1 did not originate from a military aircraft. Questions are free. Answers are expensive. Start putting some boots on the ground if you want to give this line of reasoning some real credibility. It's up to you to make the case.

Or so it seems to me.

LTM, who wasn't the one photographed in a compromising position at the NMUSAF,Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Nice find, Doug. There were certainly changes in skins that are interesting, but perhaps like Monty, my impression is that the original bracing pattern remained consistent with the B-24. In pictures like these I can typically pick out a 1/2 dozen or so areas that 'look like' 2-2-V-1 by pattern, but now having touched one considerably I realize not even close.

That said, it'd be nice to be able to see a surviving C-87 up close to look for the delta between that model and the '24 to see if any fresh candidates could emerge.

One other likely negative for this being part of a C-87, in my view at least, is that 2-2-V-1 bears so many earmarks of truly expedited field work. Could be wrong of course, but not quite the same as the more formal type of work that we see in these pictures, which appears to be more 'factory kitted' to me - except for that odd set of 'patchwork' I see on the bare nose othe C-87 that is juxtaposed against the same portion of a B-24. I don't think the patterns would bear out if examined closely, but there is some interesting quilt work on that example, for sure.

It is hard to say for sure, but the interior surfaces of some of the kitwork - including for instance the bomb bay skin and frames, appears to be painted. Maybe others have a keener eye to tell for sure.

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.